JUDGMENT R.B. Lal, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of acquittal dated 25-4-1977 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hata, district Deoria. 2. Sri R.P. Srivastava, Labour Inspector, who was also an Inspector for the purposes of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (briefly the Act), visited the hotel of Sunder Lal Gupta an accused-respondent, on 19-7-73 at 2 P.M. and found two persons, Ganesh Prasad Srivastava and Gopi working in the hotel. Sunder Lal Gupta, owner of the Hotel, was also present. The Inspector found that the owner had not maintained the attendance register, wage payment register, and was not issuing wage slips to the employees, and had also not displayed the notices prescribed in Forms nos.11 to 16 and had thus contravened the provisions of Section 18 of the Act read with Rules 26 and 22 of the U.P. Minimum Wages Rules 1952 (briefly the Rules) and rendered himself liable to punishment under section 22 of the Act. The Inspector filed a complaint in the court of Magistrate. The accused denied the prosecution allegations and alleged that his shop was under construction and two persons were working in that connection. He had affixed signatures on the inspection note prepared by the Inspector. He examined one witness Harish Chandra in defence. 3. The learned Magistrate took the view that the point that the labourers working in the Hotel, were not being paid the prescribed wages, was not proved because the labourers in question were not examined to prove the same. He also observed that the defence had said that the Hotel was not open on the date the Inspector inspected the Hotel. There was no independent witness to support the prosecution case. In the result, the Magistrate acquitted the accused 4. The Inspector has not felt satisfied and has filed this appeal. No one has cared to appear on behalf of the accused-respondent. I have, therefore, heard the Assistant Government Advocate in support of the appeal and have carefully considered the material on the record and the relevant provisions of law. 5. In the complaint, the deficiences pointed out at the time of the inspection on 19-7-1973, were enumerated thus:- 1. Prescribed registers such as attendance register and wage payment registers were not maintained and were not produced for inspection on demand. 2. Wage slips in Form 10 were not being issued to the employees. 5. In the complaint, the deficiences pointed out at the time of the inspection on 19-7-1973, were enumerated thus:- 1. Prescribed registers such as attendance register and wage payment registers were not maintained and were not produced for inspection on demand. 2. Wage slips in Form 10 were not being issued to the employees. 3. Necessary information in Forms Nos.11 to 16 were not being displayed at the Hotel. 6. Sub-sections (1), (3) and (2) of section 18 of the Act respectively provide for maintenance of registers as prescribed, issue of wage slips to employees and exhibition of prescribed notices. Sub-rules (1), (2) and (6) of Rule 26 of the Rules, prescribe the register of wages, form of wage slip, and the notices to be exhibited. These notices are 6 in number and given in Forms Nos.11 to 16 contained in the Rules. Rule 26-B of the Rules provides that the employer of an establishment shall produce all registers and records before the Inspector on demand. Clause (b) of section 22 of the Act provides for punishment of contravention of any rule made under the Act. From the above, it follows that the acts of omission or commission mentioned by the Inspector in his complaint would amount to offences punishable under section 22 of the Act, if found established. 7. In order to prove that the accused who was the owner of the Hotel, was guilty of the aforesaid acts of omission and commission, the Inspector examined himself, and he stated that he did not find the registers maintained and the notices in Form Nos.11 to 16 were not displayed and wage slips were not being issued to the employees. Sunder Lal did not produce the register and documents on demand The Inspector stated that he had given a copy of the inspection note to Sunder Lal and the latter did not care to submit a reply despite a reminder dated 17-9-73. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of the accused and, therefore, what he stated deserved full credence. There was no reason to disbelieve the Inspector and look for corroboration of his testimony by independent evidence. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of the accused and, therefore, what he stated deserved full credence. There was no reason to disbelieve the Inspector and look for corroboration of his testimony by independent evidence. In this connection it will also be pertinent to note that the accused had not taken up the stand that he was complying with the aforesaid requirements of law, and he had produced the requisite register and records before the Inspector on being demanded. In these circumstances, no further evidence was required to establish the prosecution case. The contrary view taken by the Magistrate was wholly perverse. 8. The defence witness Harish Chandra stated that he was a tenant of the accused. He added that the accused was lying ill from June 1973 onwards and the shop was lying closed as there was no one else to run the shop (hotel). The Magistrate referred to this evidence and though he did not record a clear finding on this question, it appears that he accepted it. This again shows that the Magistrate had not cared to peruse the material on the record. The accused had not said anywhere in his statement that his hotel was lying closed on the date on which the Inspector had visited it and that he was ill and unable to run his hotel. The accused on the other hand took up the stand that he had taken a the (contract) to run a hotel and had not started the hotel till then. The shop was under construction and two persons were working there in that connection. This was enough to belie the statement of the defence witness. The own statement of the accused was not worthy of acceptance because no suggestion to this effect was made to the Inspector. According to the Inspector, the hotel was running and two employees were working in it. In these circumstances, the view that the hotel was closed for a long period and, thererfore, there could be no question of the contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Rules framed thereunder, was wholly against the weight of the evidence and erroneous. The learned Magistrate further observed that the prosecution had failed to prove by sufficient evidence that the employees working in the hotel were not being paid at the prescribed rates. The learned Magistrate further observed that the prosecution had failed to prove by sufficient evidence that the employees working in the hotel were not being paid at the prescribed rates. This question did not arise for consideration in the case because it was not taken up as one of the grounds in the complaint. No doubt, this was mentioned in the inspection note but was not taken up as an item of contravention of the relevant provision of the law. There could, therefore, be no question of the prosecution case failing for want of evidence on this point. 9. In the instant case, what was required to be proved by the prosecution was that the relevant rules were not being observed by the employer in connection with the maintenance of registers and other records, and that these registers and records were not produced before the Inspector when demanded. The unassailed and unrebutted testimony of the Inspector proved all these facts very clearly. His statement also proved that the respondent was the 'employer' of 'hotel' as defined in the Act, and two employees were working in his hotel at the time of inspection. 'Hotels and restaurants' are 'scheduled employment' within the meaning of the Act and this fact was not challenged before the Magistrate. The Government of Uttar Pradesh had included 'hotel and restaurant' in the list of 'scheduled employment'. 10. The contravention of Rule 26 of the Rules in respect of the three matters complained of by the Inspector, stood fully proved by the evidence on record. THE accused-respondent was, therefore, guilty of contravention of clauses (1), (2) and (6) of the Rule 26 read with section 22 (b) of the Act. The order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate was wholly misconceived land erroneous and deserves to be set aside. The respondent is liable to conviction. 11. Coming to the question of sentence, I think that the ends of justice will be Sufficiently met if the accused-respondent is sentenced to pay a fine of Rupees five undred and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 12. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of acquittal is set aside. 11. Coming to the question of sentence, I think that the ends of justice will be Sufficiently met if the accused-respondent is sentenced to pay a fine of Rupees five undred and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 12. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of acquittal is set aside. Sunder Lal accused-respondent is convicted of an offence under Rule 26 of the U.P. Minimum Wages Rules 1952 read with section 22 (b) of the Minimum Wages Act and is sentenced to pay a fine of rupees five hundred. IN default of payment of fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. He is allowed three months from today to pay up the fine. Appeal allowed.